Culture Culture Everywhere

Ending with Eagleton’s After Theory for this class’s last reading (sympathetic sigh) was a great way to have some closure on the content of this course. I, like I’m sure many people in the class did, enjoyed his use of style and voice as he sumed up the decades of theory and intellectual movements in a scholarly and witty manner that can only be articulated in the knowledge of hindsight. The new theory at hand seems to be better than the previous: “There was a general excited sense that the present was the place to be” (24). We don’t know if it works until we try it, then we can rag on it years later, much like disco.

The similes and out-of-left-field analogies that Eagleton sprinkles throughout the text were particularly entertaining to me: “In certain postmodern quarters, the word ‘progress’ is greeted with scorn usually reserved for those who believe that the face of Elvis Presley keeps mysteriously showing up on chocolate chip cookies” (179) . Anyone who spits a little pop reference to The Simpsons, Brad Pitt, Satan, George Bush, Mick Jagger, Elvis and Four Weddings and a Funeral all in the same piece has captured my attention.

The territory that Eagleton covers is immense, to say the least, so I cannot in a sober state attempt to highlight all pivotal excerpts. I can, however, speak about what Eagleton reinforces about the achievements of cultural theory: “it has disabused us of the idea that there is a single correct way to interpret a work of art” (95)—which is what got me into teaching and continuing my education in the first place. This doesn’t mean that “anything can mean anything”, but the freedom of this idea of interpretation is appealing and desirable for people as opposed to a fettered approach preached by authorities. If evidence exists to support a meaning, in a comprehensible and traceable manner, your claim is feasible. That is exactly why I am not a Math teacher.

“To be inside and outside a position at the same time—to occupy territory while loitering skeptically on the boundary—is often where the most intensely creative ideas stem from” (40).

Maybe Shakespeare Killed Marlowe . . .

See, I can make assumptions too.

Between reading Barry and this week’s articles, what kept arising in the forefront of all this non-fiction for me was the aspect of identity and main vein connection to reputation. As we know, words are very powerful and assumptions are even more dangerous. Stigmatizing a specific culture or group can have infinite ramifications in the present and future, as we see in Goldberg’s article. Yes, we all know I love me some English Renaissance, so the Marlowe article was particularly interesting to me. As an undergrad I learned of Marlowe and what my professor called his reputation as “the bad boy of the renaissance who was stabbed in the eye with his own dagger”—very Sapranos. So, when I read the article accusing him of being a homosexual, I wasn’t too surprised at the assumption knowing the society of the time. I don’t think of him as any less of an author, or any more for that manner; but I do think conservatists might feel the former when they read the article. So, my question for those would be, was he any less of an artist? any less of a contributor to the canon? Any less of a human being?

If so, then we must remove hundreds and hundreds of artists from the Western canon. Under such evidence that was used against Marlowe by Baines could also suggest that Shakespeare was a homosexual with is sonnets to a young man—are we then going to eradicate him as well? Maybe Shakespeare was part of Marlowe’s murder, only to use his pieces to jigsaw his own plays (The Jew of Malta is awful close to The Merchant of Venice which was acted a short few years after his death. . . hmmmm)

What I have the most problem with is the idea that someone’s personal preferences can marginalize them from society even if it does not affect the society around them. Making damaging accusations of one’s character with unfounded evidence is commonly known as McCarthyism (Instead of witches we are now conveniently hunting down anyone with Middle Eastern descent because they are all terrorists . . . . "it’s in their DNA”) After reading Barry, I now understand the motivation for lesbian feminists to break away from mainstream feminist theory and combat the misrepresentation of the movement. There will always be misconceptions and enemies will always exist; what we can do is educated those who have been misinformed.

“[R]ebellion never manages to find its own space; but always acts in the space that society has created for it” (Goldberg, 80)

The Church and the Red Light District of Elizabethan England

As I read Greenblatt’s “The Circulation of Energy” chapter, I was reminded of how the Elizabethan theater was both a censored institution and a venue for political criticism. After reading Barry, I feel that Greenblatt is a cultural materialist (179) who scrutinizes the marginalized details of the text in order to uncover the overlooked histories of the English Renaissance. He focuses on the medium of the theater to flesh out the “half-hidden cultural transactions” and attempt to create a “whole-reading” of a work. (4)

Although artists at this time were censored (8) by their superiors (like the prohibition of using the name “God” in a play—p.10), the theater also became a place of political commentary (in the most disguised of ways—p.19) and also served as a propaganda medium for the powers in the control. Like churches and its art, the theater was often used to educate the illiterate and lower classes of the dominant ideology (Foucault’s discursive practices) and used these mediums to control the masses from rebellion (Williams structures of feeling): “An audience watching a play, Nashe suggested, would not be hatching a rebellion” (18). On the flip side, it was also used to reinforce monarchical power and secure the division of social classes. (i.e.: the term “Sirrah” used to generalize the name of a servant, just like the name “Mary” was used to generalize female slaves—Yeah Morrison class!)

Now, I am a lover of Shakespeare and have always used a political and social lens when interpreting his plays (obviously plays like MacBeth and Richard III scream political commentary or were created to please the superiors), but now I am interested to read such pieces like The Comedy of Errors (not mere slapstick, but perhaps a commentary on economics?) or even The Taming of the Shrew (feminists are pissed off, I’m sure).

I Best Get Me A Education

As I read Bourdieu over the last several days (in intense hour increments) I was reminded of an activity that I do with my students to demonstrate Bourdieus concept of cultural capital and how it relates to social mobility (i.e. economic, social statues) in the real world. In a time of another American recession, jobs and economic security is at the forefront of everyone’s mind, especially high school students who are entering the workforce or pursuing a post-secondary education in an extremely competitive job market. Now, I dislike teaching traditional grammar as most English teachers tend to do after so much formulaic instruction (if I liked it so much, I would’ve become a math teacher) but it seems absolutely essential in order for students to achieve what Bourdiue calls a ‘linguistic capital’ that contributes to an individual’s cultural capital (ex. Language type, grammar, spelling, style) that factor into attain a specific ‘social space’.

“Moreover, the distribution of linguistic capital is related in specific ways to the distribution o f other forms of capital (economic capital, cultural capital, etc.)[. . .][h]ence, differences in terms of accent, grammar and vocabulary—the very differences overlooked by formal linguistics—are indices of the social positions of speakers and reflections of qualities of linguistic capitals ( and other capital) which they possess” (18).

I give my students an “Income Grammar Test” from the pedagogy book Image Grammar that measures a student's grammatical knowledge and then uses that measurement to predict the student's potential income if they entered the work force now. This is used to motivate students to be considerate of written and oral communication in a formal setting.

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/133/136334/grammartest.pdf

“Every day individuals who make grammatical errors are victims of a pervasive but seldom discussed prejudice. People assume that those who make frequent grammatical errors are unintelligent, not very knowledgeable, and incompetent. None of this may be true. Language habits are more indicative of social background than education and ability. However, any business executive will support the notion that grammatical skill directly affects promotion. So, the idea behind the Grammar Income Test is valid, although the scored income level may not be” (Noden).

Bourdiue states “The question of performative utterances becomes clearer if one sees it as a particular case of the effects of symbolic domination, which occurs in all linguistic exchanges” (72). After students take the test (depending on the grade level) they seem to be more cognizant of their formal communication exchanges and how “incorporated signs (such as manners, ways of speaking)” assist in creating an image used as a tool to judge and individual’s character (class, capital, etc) and worth seen by others. (123)

So, if you have some time, try the quiz above WITHOUT looking at the answers, and see what degree of symbolic power designated by your cultural capital you may possess based off of your performance.

Walter Benjamin and Shepard Fairey

As I read this week’s reading, I couldn’t help but think of Shepard Fairey and his “HOPE” piece on Obama as I read Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It was interesting to read about Benjamin’s perception on the origins and value of art and how they “are received and valued on different planes. Two polar types stand out: with one, the accent of cult value, the exhibition value of art work” (1237). As arts is viewed by the masses, the value shifts to a more commodified form, and subsequently away from the “magical” value that was emphasized in more prehistoric times. As this distancing of values widen, and “with emancipation of the various art practices from ritual go increasing opportunities for the exhibition of their products” (1238). The word that hit me here was the use of “products” and how it disenchants the idea of art and artistic expression, and cheapens it to a factory form. Art is no loger seen as a documentation of humanity, or even a material circumstance at best, but is created for conspicuous consumption that is perpetuated by the elite.

The most influential piece of pop art that immediately popped into my head as I read this was Shepard Fairey’s Obama “HOPE” piece (which has been thought of as Andy Warhol meets Social Realism) that was absolutely instrumental in the campaigning techniques for this past election. Shepard Fairey, who started out as a street artist and skateboard designer (famous obey line and Andre the Giant—thought as a guerilla artist), created an iconic art piece that was mass produced, replicated and even parodied. This propaganda piece appeals to those who frequent the Lenisits critisim approach to art: art that is explicitly committed to the political cause of the time. Ironically enough, Shepard’s gear was for the liberal side, whereas Lenin outlawed such liberal views in the 1934 and direct control over literature and art was exerted. (Barry) Even though Shepard Fairey is attempting to move away from his celebrity status and has created breath-taking pieces that reflect his guerilla roots, he will never be viewed again as a cult or even a cultural artist, but rather will be remembered for his propaganda image and a “sell out” by his pre-Obama followers.

As the purpose art continues to drift away from the ritual, the more art is able to be reproduced. “Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice—politics” (1237).

Phallolocentrism in Entertainment

As I read the Barry section on Feminist Criticism, the section that stuck out the most would have to be the section concerning language. The idea behind this section is a discussion on gender oriented language and it’s restraints on women writers “so that when a woman turns to novel writing she finds that there is ‘no common sentence ready for her to use’” (Barry 121). This male-oriented language creates a bias in the medium which effectively disables the female writer from expressing herself in an unrestrained fashion. These constructs perpetuate gender bias language and impedes female expression.

This bias doesn’t only exist in literature or other genres of writing, but gender variation language has been a recent subject of interest in the field of sociolinguistics concerning oral communication and entertainment forums (eg: cartoons, sitcoms, etc.) In The Study of Language by George Yule, he discusses current findings on such studies in contemporary English concerning “male and female talk”. He found when analyzing dialogue between genders that:

“[t]here is a pattern documented in American English social contexts of women co-operating and seeking connection in language, whereas men are more competitive and concerned with power via language. In mixed-gender pairs having conversations, the rate men interrupt women is substantially greater than in reverse. Women are reported to use more expressions associated with tentativeness, such as ‘hedges’ (sort of, kind of) and ‘tags’ (isn’t it?, don’t you?), when expressing an opinion: Well, em, I think that golf is kind of boring, don’t you?” (Yule, 2002, 242).

So, although we currently are in the “3rd wave feminism” movement, the focus of gynocentrics seems to be dominated on literature (at least on what we read in Barry for this week), it seems to me that focus should also be split to re-evaluate other mediums, specifically media: television and programs aimed at the youth that perpetuate such phallolocentrism ideologies. If such mediums are overlooked, then the "mechanics of patriarchy" will continue and female traits will be determined by cultural and social constructs of America.

Determinist Marxism for some . . . miniature Liberal Marxism flags for others!

Although Marxists share the same baseline of thought when it comes to literary criticism, “that a writer’s class and prevailing ideology have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class”, I was unaware of the division between Determinist Marxism and Liberal Marxism in the context of gauging how much social, political, and economic variables influence writers. (Barry 152) Determinists, according to Barry, believe that art is a passive product of socio-economic forces while the “liberal-line” believes that these forces are much more distant and subtle. Jameson argues that political interpretation of literary texts are not “some supplementary method [. . .] but rather [functions] as the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation” (On Interpretation 181).

This hermeneutic view of cultural literature made me reevaluate readings of some canonized texts that are taught in the secondary classroom, and I came to realize that, in some degree, this rings true. Almost all science fiction can be seen as social criticisms (Fahrenheit 451, 1984, even the commercialized Halo series), Shakespeare wrote his plays in response to political, social, and economic commentary (Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, Julius Caesar), the Beats rebelled against the country’s ideology and literary practices of the time (broke away from traditional conventions of subject matter, religion, syntax and prescriptive grammar). I bring up these specific pieces up only because they are on the curriculum I teach at the high school level.

Although poetry seems to be autonomous from this hermeneutic view (a genre that is popularly thought of as individualized expression) inspiration for such pieces can be traced back to socio-economic or political strife if the reader digs deep enough.

Now, I understand that this is a huge generalization, and I know that many will refute this, but I believe if we put enough effort and research behind any major literary piece, we could find some degree of social, political or economic context. So, I can agree to some extent with Jameson on his “On Interpretation”, that “[t]he only effective liberation from such constraints begins with the recognition that there is nothing that is not social and historical” to some degree. (183) So, depending on the text, I can rationalized taking a determinist stance on some works (like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle) or the liberal-line approach (Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”) depending on genre and piece that is being interpreted.